Recently, I had the opportunity to observe additional bird species collecting nectar from the African Tuliptree (Spathodea campanulata), a common ornamental species in the region. The bird species collecting nectar from this tree included Orchard Orioles (Icterus spurius),

[envira-gallery id=”1613″]

…Hooded Orioles (Icterus cucullatus),

[envira-gallery id=”1633″]

…and Yellow-winged Caciques (Cassiculus melanicterus).

[envira-gallery id=”1619″]

All of the above species are well-documented nectar collectors.1

The final bird I saw collecting nectar — the Rufous-backed Robin or Thrush (Turdus rufopalliatus) — was a considerably bigger surprise.

[envira-gallery id=”1599″]

While many of the True Thrushes, including Rufous-backed Robins, consume significant amounts of fruit, I could only find one record of them consuming nectar. An unpublished source indicates that Asian species, the Grey-sided Thrush (Turdus feae), collects nectar from the flowers of the legume Acrocarpus fraxinifolius.2

So why would birds that eat sugar-rich fruit rarely if ever take the opportunity to collect similarly sugar-rich nectars? Apparently, the answer to this question lies in the kinds of sugars found in fruit and nectar.3

The sugars in fruit are almost always glucose and fructose. These sugars are simple and directly absorbed in the intestines of frugivores without need of further processing. Conversely, most floral nectars have sucrose as their predominant sugar. Sucrose is a disaccharide formed from glucose and fructose and cannot be absorbed by the intestines until it is broken down into glucose and fructose by the enzyme sucrase.

There are, however, some plants that produce floral nectars where glucose and fructose are the predominant sugars.3 Such plants are more common in the Old World than in the New. This may be the result of a more equitable sharing of the avian nectar-feeding niche in the Old World between passerine species that can and can’t digest sucrose. In the New World, sucrose-digesting hummingbirds dominate this niche possibly reducing the selection for plants that produce floral nectars rich in glucose and fructose rather than sucrose.

This then may explain why I was able to observe Rufous-backed Robins feeding on nectar. The tree they were collecting nectar from, the African Tuliptree, is one of those Old World species whose nectar contains glucose and fructose instead of sucrose.4

As always, one question answered leads to others. Is this a relatively new behavior for Rufous-backed Robins or have we managed not to see them collecting nectar from other native plant species whose nectars contain glucose and fructose instead of sucrose? Also, the calyces of the African Tuliptree produce large quantities of water which are necessary for floral development and which then spills over into the opening flowers. In the relatively xeric environment along this part of the west coast of Mexico, has this unusual feature played any role in the origin and maintenance of nectar feeding in this thrush?

]]>http://sullenderlab.com/nectar-feeding-rufous-backed-robins-in-western-mexico/feed/0The Petroglyphs of La Pintada, Jalisco, Mexicohttp://sullenderlab.com/the-petroglyphs-of-la-pintada-jalisco-mexico/
http://sullenderlab.com/the-petroglyphs-of-la-pintada-jalisco-mexico/#respondSun, 18 Nov 2018 20:12:48 +0000https://sullenderlab.com/?p=1524Continue reading →]]>In April of 2015 I visited the small pueblo of La Pintada not far from Tomatlán in Jalisco, Mexico. My objective was to see ancient artwork in the form of the impressive petroglyphs found there. After finally finding La Pintada and then driving around in the pueblo for a while, I finally found them.

[envira-gallery id=”1502″]

As the third of the three maps below shows, the petroglyphs aren’t far from the road. The problem is that there’s an irrigation canal between the road and the petroglyphs. I’m not a long jumper and I didn’t feel like wading, so I looked for another way to reach the petroglyphs for a closer look.

On the other side of the canal I rode into the pueblo where a woman asked if I was looking for something. When I said I was trying to find a way to get to the piedras pintadas, she told me to wait for just a second. She then went and fetched a fellow who would serve as my guide.

When my guide and I got to the rocks, it gave me a better look at what was visible from the road and I also got to see some things not visible from the road.

[envira-gallery id=”1504″]

As can be seen, most of the petroglyphs were spirals and concentric circles. As can also be seen, there was also a large rectangular figure carved on vertical surface. For me, there was nothing recognizable inside this rectangle and my guide speculated that maybe it had served as a map at one time.

Anyway, these are just the more prominent and easily accessible petroglyphs. A systematic survey of the area revealed a total of 97 petroglyph rocks.1

Next, my guide led me to another area where he speculated that the former inhabitants ground food and at least occasionally visited after dark.

[envira-gallery id=”1510″]

The shallow depressions are found throughout the Americas and are quite typical of those used for grinding maize and other things. While my guide suggested that the smaller diameter holes may have supported torches, I wonder instead if they might have been used for pounding hard seeds, for instance, as a step in the process for making pinole.

So who was responsible for making the petroglyphs and when did they make them?

Sometimes with petroglyphs there is relatively clear evidence of who the artists were. Good examples can be found not far from La Pintada. La Pintada lies in the Río Tomatlán River Valley. Within this valley, scientists have located 747 boulders with rock art. With one exception — the unique and fascinating pictographs of La Peña Pintada2 — all are petroglyphs.1

Almost all surface artifacts in close proximity to these 747 boulders can be traced to the Nauhuapa phase of occupation* (A.D. 1300 to 1525 and even into the colonial period).1,3 In a few cases, boulders with petroglyphs were even part of these people’s houses. All of this suggests that these same people were the artists.

There are a few instances, however, where surface artifacts in proximity to rock art are predominantly from the Aztatlán phase of occupation which began around 1215 A.D.1,3 In these cases, the Aztatlán may have been the artists.

Until recently, the situation at La Pintada has been less clear.1 A nearby excavation found pottery sherds traceable to three prehispanic phases of occupation in the area: the Capacha, the La Pintada (named after the location), and the Aztatlán. By far the most abundant sherds were from the La Pintada with Capacha and Aztatlan sherds being much less common.

Before I talk about which is most likely responsible for the petroglyphs, I think it’s worth taking a moment to reflect a little on who these people were.

The Capacha Culture (1500 to 800 B.C.) was found along the Pacific coast from Sinaloa to Colima although elements can also be seen in the Rio Balsas Depression of Guerrero.4 These people intensively exploited marine resources but also farmed maize. Their pottery was very distinctive with what appear to be links to northwest South America (click here for a video in Spanish).

The affinities of the people of the La Pintada phase (400 B.C. to A.D. 300)1 to the greater cultures of the time are unclear. They were contemporaries of the “shaft-and-chamber tomb” culture that occupied a semicircular band through the highlands of Jalisco whose ends broadened upon reaching the coasts of Colima and Nayarit.4 Their external ties, though, seem to be strongest to the Autlán-Tuxcacuesco area in the mountains of southwest Jalisco. At La Pintada, intensive craft production along with the presence of exotic shells and minerals suggests that trade was important for these people. It is estimated that around 1000 people lived at La Pintada at that time.

The Aztatlán Culture (A.D.200 to 900 in its initial phases with its greatest development and expansion from A.D. 850/900 to 1350)5 ranged from Tomatlán, Jalisco northward to Sinaloa and occupied the river valleys of the coast. Here they practiced extensive floodplain agriculture.4 They grew and exported various tropical plant products like cacao and cotton and also specialized in various crafts. During their tenure, they became a significant part of the trade route for items from the American Southwest like turquoise that previously had moved along the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Occidental.

So which of these cultures is most likely responsible for the art at La Pintada? To see what the current thinking is, I emailed Dr. Joseph B. Mountjoy, the archaeologist who has done most of the archaeological research in the Río Tomatlán River Valley and who also done work at various other sites in western Mexico. In his reply, he pointed out that nobody so far has been able to definitively link the Capacha Culture to rock art. Also, while there is Aztatlán pottery sherds at La Pintada, they are so few in number that he doubts that the Aztatlán had much of a presence at the location. This argues against them being the artists.

Conversely, in his own recent work at two locations not far from Puerto Vallarta, Dr. Mountjoy has found petroglyphs in association with contemporaries of the La Pintada phase of occupation. This suggests that the inhabitants of La Pintada at this time could very well be responsible for the artwork. If so, the La Pintada petroglyphs could be at or around 2,000 years old.

Visiting La Pintada

[envira-gallery id=”1520″]

There is nothing like a visitor’s center at La Pintada. You will need to park in the pueblo and ask around for a guide. Be sure to pay your guide. I think I paid around 200 pesos for the services of mine.

*Phase of occupation refers to the time that a particular culture occupied the Tomatlán River Valley.

]]>http://sullenderlab.com/the-petroglyphs-of-la-pintada-jalisco-mexico/feed/0Food for Motmot Nestlingshttp://sullenderlab.com/food-for-motmot-nestlings/
http://sullenderlab.com/food-for-motmot-nestlings/#respondMon, 05 Nov 2018 23:56:52 +0000https://sullenderlab.com/?p=1365Continue reading →]]>One of the more lovelier birds in west Mexico is the west Mexican endemic, the Russet-crowned Motmot (Momotus mexicanus), shown below with a cockroach.

[envira-gallery id=”1413″]

It was my good fortune to watch a breeding pair provisioning their offspring from around the middle of June to the beginning of July. I took pictures and made videos. While doing this, I was reminded of something I read in John Terborgh’s book Diversity and the Tropical Rainforest.1 In his book Terborgh argues that one component of increased biological diversity in tropical rainforests as compared to elsewhere is a greater number of niches. One such niche created by the presence of large tropical rainforest insects is the large tropical rainforest insect eating guild of birds, exemplified by the motmots.

While this wasn’t the rainforest and the insects and other things brought back to the nest weren’t all big, it was nevertheless an interesting assortment of food items. Because motmots nest in burrows and the chicks are hidden away, I couldn’t see them receiving their meals. Suffice it to say, though, for a motmot chick a meal can be a real surprise!

Caterpillars are an important nestling food source for neotropical migrants. For the photographed pair of Russet-crowned Motmots, they were important too. At times it appeared that the pair identified a particular caterpillar host plant and returned to that plant repeatedly for the same species of caterpillar. The first of three caterpillar photographs is also further evidence that the eversible osmeterium (the yellow “horn-like” projection arising from just behind the head) of swallowtail butterfly larvae, while secreting substances that deter ant and other invertebrate predators, is relatively ineffective against vertebrate predators.2

[envira-gallery id=”1368″]

The motmot pair also commonly fed their offspring adult cicadas and less commonly juvenile forms (the first photo).

[envira-gallery id=”1381″]

Beetles too were important components of the nestling’s diet. In the early part of my observations, elongate beetle larvae like the one shown in the last picture were frequently brought back to the nest.

[envira-gallery id=”1392″]

The adult pair also fed their nestlings an assortment of other animal foods including, among other things, ant alates, millipedes, crabs, snakes, frogs, and terrestrial slugs. The last photograph shows a bird with a vertebrate whose tail is missing although I can’t tell if it’s a lizard or young mammal.

[envira-gallery id=”1397″]

Finally, fruit – particularly guamuchiles (Pithecellobium dulce) shown in the first photograph – was also an important component of offspring diet.

[envira-gallery id=”1404″]

These photographs show that Russet-crowned Motmots feed their nestlings a variety of foods from locations as diverse as the crowns of trees to leaf litter on the ground. They also provide additional evidence that the assumed chemical defenses of things like papilionid larvae2 and millipedes3 often do not deter bird predation.

]]>http://sullenderlab.com/food-for-motmot-nestlings/feed/0Chamela-Cuixmala Plant List (Traditional Dicotyledonae) with Photographshttp://sullenderlab.com/chamela-cuixmala-plant-list/
http://sullenderlab.com/chamela-cuixmala-plant-list/#respondSun, 09 Sep 2018 15:51:38 +0000https://sullenderlab.com/?p=1049Continue reading →]]>In August of 2017 I began to photograph and identify flowering plants at Cuixmala and the Fundación Ecológica de Cuixmala. To help with identification, I relied heavily on two area plant lists to narrow down the possibilities. Both of these were produced by the preeminent plant taxonomist for the Chamela-Cuixmala area, Dr. Emily J. Lott.

Initially I used her list found at the Estacion Chamela website (http://www.ibiologia.unam.mx/ebchamela/www/flora.html) but later used the more recent and extensive one she published in 2002 in the book Historia Natural de Chamela (HNC). Nevertheless, in the course of identifying what the HNC list suggested would be about 10% of the species present in the area, I had already found 4 species “new” to the area (Funastrum bilobum, Hibiscus colimensis, Nama jamaicensis, and Solanum angustifolium).

Also, while doing the identifications, it was apparent that there had been numerous taxonomic changes. Many of these were the result of revolutionizing molecular phylogenies published since 2002.

Consequently, I decided to update Lott’s HNC list, at least for the “traditional dichots”.

To update species’ names and check family assignment I looked at four online sites: Flora Mesoamericana/Tropicos, Catalogue of Life, Plants of the World online , and The Plant List. Where there were disagreements between these sites about what genus or family a plant belonged to, I looked first to see if the differences could be due to whether or not sites had incorporated the results of recent phylogenetic reconstructions. Where disagreements were between smaller less inclusive or larger more inclusive monophyletic clades, I tended to favor the former.

Where there were disagreements based on nomenclature history (species name or author citation), I again looked for awareness of the issue and evidence of its recent consideration.

I included ALL records that I could find and did not attempt to determine the veracity of the records. In several instances, for example, identified plants were well outside of their recorded ranges. Without additional information, though, it is impossible to rule out that they are escaped exotics. Also, unless specifically supported by online taxonomic sites or the literature, I did not synonymize cases where a species was reported along with a variety and/or subspecies whose name was identical to the specific epithet of the species. In a few instances where Lott includes an unidentified species in her HNC (2002) list, I attempted to match a named species based on her description. These instances are indicated in the list.

A species was considered to have been found within the boundaries of the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve if Lott’s HNC (2002) list indicated that it had been found at the the Estación de Biología Chamela or if gbif records showed that it had been found there. Decisions on gbif records were based solely on whether the central location point was inside or outside of the boundary and without regard to possible location based on location error estimate.

Photographed species in the list have an image button that can be clicked to access images that were uploaded on Inaturalist.org. Normally there are photographs of reproductive and vegetative parts in an effort to capture taxonomically important characters. Location information can also be found at this same site.

An additional valuable resource is the Flora útil del Municipio de la Huerta, Jalisco. This is a gbif-based CONABIO project that includes the area covered by this list but is of considerably greater geographical extent. Within its geographic limits, it provides direct links to all gbif recorded occurrences down to the generic level. It also provides direct links to gbif records of select species. An extensive list of local Spanish common names are also provided for these select species.

Objective of the list

My primary objective for this list is to provide the non-specialist having at least some familiarity with plant family characteristics a starting point for the identification of a Dicotyledonous-like plant in the Chamel-Cuixmala area. The flora here is diverse and there is no field guide to flowering plants for the area. Systematically keying out species is a challenge even for the specialist. For the non-specialists this challenge is exacerbated when identification keys for many taxa are difficult and sometimes nearly impossible to find, particularly for those without ready access to university libraries. A comprehensive list along with creative use of internet resources can help the non-specialist narrow down the possibilities to where they have a reasonable chance of making an identification.

Some qualified observations

At a very coarse level, the list also gives some sense of the species richness of the area. The seasonal tropical dry forests of Chamela-Cuixmala are among the most species rich in the Neotropics (Gentry 1995). People are naturally interested in just how species rich the forests are. Lott’s HNC (2002) list reports 1,149 vascular plant species of which 976 are traditional dicotyledonous plants. Her list has no multiple varieties or subspecies and is essentially a species list. If I collapse varieties and subspecies to species, my list of traditional dicotyledonous plants contains 1,259 species, an addition of 283 species. It is important to note, though, that Lott’s numbers and mine come about by very different means. Lott’s numbers are based on examined herbarium specimens while mine come entirely from gbif records and the literature. Many of the gbif records are more than 20 years old, and as indicated earlier, some are questionable. Finally, the area I examined is larger than what Lott did, particularly to the east. My subjective impression from looking at the gbif maps, however, is that this does not inflate the number of species greatly. This is not surprising. The majority of records almost certainly have as their source researchers based at the Estación de Biología Chamela.

Finally, with the same above caveats, this list provides some indication of species found within the boundaries of the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve. In her HNC list Lott specifically indicates with an * those species found in the Chamela part of the Biosphere. In the textual description of species she also indicates when a species had been found in Cuixmala. However, her description of Cuixmala does not distinguish between those parts of Cuixmala inside and outside of the Reserve. Again, excluding varieties and subspecies and focusing only on species, the list here suggests that 927 traditional dicotyledonous plant species have been found within the boundaries of the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve.

I would like to thank the Inaturalist community (particularly Alexis López Hernández, Fernando Pío León, and Ronald Kushner) for their assistance in identifications. I would also like to thank Dr. Kurt Neubig and Dr. Orland Blanchard for assistance in identifying Kosteletzkya depressa, Dr. Orland Blanchard for his assistance in identifying Pavonia fryxellii and Hibiscus colimensis, and Dr. Aliya Donnell Davenport for her help in identifying Bakeridesia parvifolia. Finally, I would like to think the Security Police at Cuixmala for both their encouraging attitude and willingness to let me in and out of gates to the Fundación Ecológica de Cuixmala promptly at a moment’s notice.

Taxa covered: This list covers the traditional Dicotyledónae (Dicotilledonaeas of Lott’s (2002) list in HNC). It also includes one monocot species that was inadvertently included in Lott’s list.

Area covered: The area examined is bounded by a polygon (roughly rectangular) whose sides and points those sides are based on as follows. Northern: where Carretera Federal 200, Puerto Vallarta, Melaque, Jalisco crosses the Río St. Nicholas (19.652301°, -105.182008°); Eastern: the town of Nacastillo, Jalisco (19.605855°, -104.922197°); Southern: where Carretera Federal 200, Puerto Vallarta, Melaque, Jalisco crosses the Río Purificación (19.35182°, -104.889495°); and Western: where the Río St. Nicholas empties into the Pacific Ocean (19.638757°, -105.213215°).

Presence in Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve: ^ alone indicates that the species has been found in the part of the Biosphere Reserve managed by La Estación de Biología Chamela (EBCh) according to Lott’s HNC (2002) list. ^n indicates that the species has been found in the Biosphere Reserve based on the nth listed reference (e.g., ^1 means that the species has been found in the Biosphere and the record is based on reference number 1 which in this site is gbif data).

Revisions: This list has as its source Lott’s HNC (2002) list. When taxa in this list are modified the original is bracketed []. Taxa may be modified based on name changes, author citation changes, spelling errors, and change in provisional species status (aff. and cf.). The last change was changed when gbif shows multiple examples of the provisional species and is indicated by a 1 following the new non-provisional name.

Parentheses () show original gbif taxon names that I have updated and assist in following the logic of changes.

Notes:

* taxonomic history/assignment is unclear or ambiguous

** gbif record includes two quite different species both of which are conceivably present in the area

]]>http://sullenderlab.com/chamela-cuixmala-plant-list/feed/0Lambs and Wolves, Alcoholic Flux, Animals and Alcohol, Not Everything in the Garden was Rosy, and a Warning from Eubulushttp://sullenderlab.com/lambs-and-wolves-alcohol-flux-what-an-insect-wants-assume-nothing-and-a-warning-from-eubulus/
http://sullenderlab.com/lambs-and-wolves-alcohol-flux-what-an-insect-wants-assume-nothing-and-a-warning-from-eubulus/#respondSun, 05 Aug 2018 00:12:28 +0000http://sullenderlab.com/?p=793Continue reading →]]>In June of 2015, below the ostentatious facade of Casa Cuixmala and amidst the property’s exotic cast of zebras and impalas, my daughter and I were privileged to witness something truly elegant and special on an otherwise obscure liana (Paullinia fuscescens) growing along one of the trails:

[envira-gallery id=”632″]

[envira-gallery id=”676″]

[envira-gallery id=”629″]

[envira-gallery id=”664″]

[envira-gallery id=”618″]

[envira-gallery id=”778″]

Neoponera ants and the vast majority of paper wasp species are powerful insect predators.[1],[2] Such seemingly placid interactions between them and their potential prey might initially bring to mind the idyllic scene foretold by the Old Testament prophet Isiah :

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox…

No less remarkable, though, was the sheer variety and combinations of insects visiting this plant for two weeks during both day

[envira-gallery id=”872″]

[envira-gallery id=”716″]

[envira-gallery id=”740″]

[envira-gallery id=”684″]

[envira-gallery id=”878″]

[envira-gallery id=”621″]

[envira-gallery id=”634″]

[envira-gallery id=”875″]

[envira-gallery id=”636″]

[envira-gallery id=”655″]

[envira-gallery id=”847″]

[envira-gallery id=”700″]

[envira-gallery id=”736″]

[envira-gallery id=”705″]

[envira-gallery id=”759″]

[envira-gallery id=”765″]

[envira-gallery id=”790″]

[envira-gallery id=”808″]

[envira-gallery id=”781″]

[envira-gallery id=”797″]

and at night.

[envira-gallery id=”726″]

[envira-gallery id=”883″]

[envira-gallery id=”674″]

[envira-gallery id=”687″]

[envira-gallery id=”771″]

[envira-gallery id=”690″]

[envira-gallery id=”774″]

From the photographs it is also pretty obvious what drew this amazing mixture of insects together. They were gathering to drink the frothy yellow “sap” that erupted at intervals along the liana.

This is by no means the first time something like this has been seen. Similar reports of insects gathering to collect frothy sap from various species of plants come from the United States [3],[4][5], Europe [6],[7],[8], and Asia.[9]

So what’s going on here?

Anybody who has been around trees for enough time is familiar with wet spots that appear on them from time to time even in the absence of obvious injury.

This happens because ordinary bacterial species found in water and soil occasionally breach a branch or trunk and enter into the plant.[10] When these breaches extend all the way to the heartwood, the invading bacteria rapidly deplete available oxygen. Without oxygen, anaerobic processes produce gases like methane which can increase internal pressures 6-12 fold. Eventually this pressure forces xylem fluid out to the surface and the plant begins to “weep”. Arborculturalists call this phenomenon bacterial wetwood or slime flux. While this is the kind of exudate most people see on their trees, it is not particularly attractive to insects, certainly not to the degree that it would draw the attention of most onlookers.

Occasionally, though, the infection is more superficial and develops in the sapwood under the bark.[11] Unlike the case with heartwood infections, this process ferments more of the plant’s sugars and results in a frothy cream-colored exudate that has a sweet yeasty smell. Arborculturalists refer to this kind of exudate as white or — because of one of the products of this fermentation — alcohol/alcoholic flux. Unlike slime flux, a great variety of insects find this exudate absolutely irresistible.

At this point you might be wondering whether one of the insects is playing a role in all of this. If you’ve looked at some of the citations you’ll see some of the same insects at other alcoholic flux events elsewhere. Could one or more of these be the ones that are introducing the microbes into the plant? The photographs above suggest to me that Euphoria beetles may shave away bark to enhance the flow of alcoholic flux, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they cause it.[12] Another possible candidate might be the large orange and black cerambycid beetle Trachyderes mandibularis. A University of Florida pdf suggests – without supporting evidence – that foamy or frothy sap may arise from the oviposition sites of another cerambycid beetle, the Asian Longhorn Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis).[13] Unlike A. glabripennis, however, T. mandibularis only oviposit in dead wood.[14] [15]

So could it be that my daughter and I stumbled on a bunch of insects seeking — pardon the pun — a buzz? And were the potential predators and their prey just too plastered to recognize each other for what they really were?

Laboratory fruit flies and other captive animals get drunk and lots of anecdotal evidence suggests that wild animals can get tipsy too.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] But we have to be a little careful. Other things can result in what people might interpret as inebriation. Some scientists, for instance, have suggested that stories about moose and deer getting drunk from eating fermented apples are actually stories about animals suffering from acidosis.[24] Acidosis occurs when animals like deer and moose that normally consume difficult to digest carbohydrates suddenly switch over to a diet rich in simple sugars. The bacterial flora in their digestive systems changes with this change in diet and begins to produce too much lactic acid. This lactic acid when absorbed into the bloodstream causes disorientation and can eventually even kill the animals. Apparently, all this can happen within 2-6 hours.

Keeping in mind the possibility of alternative explanations, it could very well be that one of the most graphic examples of mass alcohol intoxication in the animal world may have been the result of insects drinking too much alcoholic flux! In their 1926 paper Insect Visitors to Sap-Exudations of Trees, G. Fox Wilson and N.D. Hort [25] cite an unpublished manuscript by J. Waterson where Waterston in observing closely the insects feeding at an alcoholic flux site states:

The most remarkable thing, however, about this insect assemblage was that for the most part its members were in a perfectly helpless state. One needed no net to collect specimens — they were to be picked off with the fingers or forceps, and in doing this I became aware that for some feet round the base of the tree there were hundreds upon hundreds of insects laid out in regular zones, and here and there on the bushes round about were others hanging by a leg or legs from leaves or twigs they had just managed to reach before being overcome.

Unlike Waterston, my daughter and I did not see droves of passed out insects. We also didn’t try catching any of the insects so we couldn’t say whether they were any more or less easy to catch. I was, however, able to get very close to some of the butterflies that ordinarily require a longer lens to photograph.

So while it isn’t unreasonable to assume that animals occasionally get drunk in the wild, a more interesting question is whether they ever do it intentionally.

Almost all animals have predators that have exerted significant selection pressures on them. If an animal’s behavior is important for avoiding, evading, or fighting any of these predators, anything causing drunken behavior would increase the chance of capture and therefore should be selected against by natural selection.

Nevertheless, sexual selection has resulted in the evolution of a long list of characters like long colorful tails or elaborate mating displays that almost certainly increase the likelihood of predation. Is it possible that drunken behavior could be included in this list of sexually-selected characters? Could the costs of getting drunk be offset by increased mating success? Ecologist Jared Diamond has suggested this very thing for our own species.[26] He argues that the near universal propensity for alcohol and drug abuse in humans may be a sexually-selected trait. How? Imagine two males drinking to complete inebriation during an evening outing. One awakens the next day as if nothing had happened and returns to the same bar the next night while the other remains bedbound. Presumably a female who is assessing the quality of potential mates could make use of such information — even if unconsciously — to determine a male’s general condition (the result of his genes and environment). Males opting out of this “test” might be automatically eliminated from consideration by the highest quality females who might be expected to both seek the highest quality male possible and be willing to compete for his attention. Whether or not Diamond’s proposed role for alcohol in human sexual selection is shown to be true or not, I don’t think it’s totally unimaginable that this sort of thing might exist somewhere out there in the animal kingdom.

While big jaws probably had more to do with it than drunkenness, liaisons between members of the same species definitely took place at this gathering of insects.

[envira-gallery id=”892″]

A final possibility, I suppose, is that some animals could be attracted to alcohol sources to self-medicate.

Anyway, despite the more interesting possibilities I suspect that most animals don’t come to fermenting things to get drunk and that getting drunk is accidental and costly. Instead, the attraction is much more basic with an additional small twist. Like most animals, insects can’t manufacture essential amino acids and B vitamins and have to obtain these from their diet.[27] Fermenting yeasts and associated micro-organisms when available are excellent sources of these essential nutrients.[28]

The small twist is that the sweet yeasty smell mentioned earlier in association with alcoholic flux is not just an incidental result of fermentation. A recent study shows that yeast almost certainly produce this odor to attract insects that then disperse the yeast to new sites.[29] By the way, this same study suggests that this symbiotic relationship almost certainly predates the origin of flowering plants and that flowering plants may have “tapped” into this system by using some of the same chemicals to attract pollinating insects to their flowers. So it turns out that the “bouquet” of your favorite alcoholic beverage and the “bouquet” of flowers at your table share a little more in common than simply the same spelling and pronunciation!

So how does coming for a good meal result in some animals getting thoroughly sloshed? I suspect that most of the opportunities for animals that only opportunistically take advantage of fermenting fruits and saps are of limited quantity and duration. Consequently, there may have been very little natural selection for resistance to the negative effects of alcohol in the evolutionary lineages of these animals. What Waterston then observed occurs when the source of fermenting organisms is superabundant and/or long-lived.

As I mentioned before, what my daughter and I observed didn’t come anything close to what Waterston observed. But as I also mentioned, butterflies of many species let me approach them much more closely than they had before or since.

So is it possible that the insects that my daughter I watched weren’t inebriated but had instead chanced on that happy level of drinking well in advance of sloppy drunk that in humans allows so many to open and socialize even with complete strangers? In particular, could it explain apparently placid interactions between predators and prey?

Before preceding, fair disclosure requires a few photos showing interactions were not always totally convivial

[envira-gallery id=”719″]

[envira-gallery id=”861″]

and some of the flies definitely scattered when paper wasps initially appeared.

While the photos above show the ants being aggressive, it seemed more in the sense of obtaining access to alcoholic flux than predatory attack. Despite both Neoponera ants and paper wasps being well-documented predators who feed their offspring meat, neither showed any inclination toward preying on their neighbors.

Many ants, including members of the genus Neoponera,[30] and very likely all paper wasps[31] collect sugary solutions in such forms as nectar, extrafloral nectar, and insect honeydew. They use these as sources of energy. Certain predatory ants even turn off their predatory behavior and tend honeydew producing insects. Also, as dietary needs change, some ant species respond by changing their dietary preferences.[32] Much less is known about food choice and feeding behavior in paper wasps.

As predators, Neoponera ants and paper wasps shouldn’t be lacking for any essential nutrients. Were they instead focusing on collecting sugars that might also be in the alcoholic flux? Or could it be that this alcohol flux was such a rich source of essential nutrients that it was more optimal to single-mindedly focus on collecting it rather than mix its collection with insect prey? Much more would need to be done to determine whether these predatory animals’ passive behavior was a result of these reasons or the sedating effect of alcohol.

Finally, and not surprisingly, the large gathering of insects eventually attracted the notice of predators. When it comes to drinking — perhaps even for insects — maybe it is wise to heed the advice of that statesman of ancient Greece Eubulus:

I mix three drinks for the temperate:
One for health, which they empty first,
The second for love and pleasure,
The third for sleep.
When these cups are emptied, the wise go home.
The fourth drink is ours no longer, but belongs to violence…

]]>http://sullenderlab.com/lambs-and-wolves-alcohol-flux-what-an-insect-wants-assume-nothing-and-a-warning-from-eubulus/feed/0A Crab Spider and its Wasphttp://sullenderlab.com/a-crab-spider-and-its-wasp/
http://sullenderlab.com/a-crab-spider-and-its-wasp/#respondThu, 19 Jul 2018 21:27:35 +0000http://sullenderlab.com/?p=934Continue reading →]]>Doing a morning walk in Cuixmala on the trail along the Pistia-filled lake near Carretera 200 (across from the fundación), I came across something “floating” in the air in front of me. Usually this is a caterpillar hanging by one of its silken threads. As can be seen in these photos, that wasn’t the case here:

[envira-gallery id=”940″]

Crab spiders (Family Thomisidae) are incredible in taking on larger and seemingly dangerous prey like this paper wasp (Polistes dorsalis) without the assistance of a web. Instead, they hang out motionlessly and frequently camouflaged at flowers or on leaves with fallen flowers. Here, they pounce on their prey and hold them with their first two pairs of legs while biting and injecting venom. Crab spiders are not dangerous to humans but you have to think that their venom is pretty powerful.

What happened here? While paper wasps don’t collect pollen to feed their offspring, they do occasionally visit flowers to feed on their nectar. They also search plants for caterpillars and other insects that they feed their offspring. For whatever reason, this one got too close to a crab spider.

While crab spiders don’t build webs, they still make and use silk. Normally eating their prey where they catch them, this one shot a line of silk out and left its perch with the wasp in its chelicerae (jaws). We can’t know exactly why it did this but perhaps a large ant or some other dangerous animal or potential predator got too close.

While the crab spider in the photos is holding the paper wasp by the base of its head, this doesn’t mean that’s where it delivered its deadly bite. Crab spiders prefer to feed from the head where they inject digestive enzymes and then suck up the slurry. What they suck up from the head must be very good. One study of crab spiders feeding on fruit flies showed that they always started at the head and then switched to the abdomen to complete their meal. If, however, a new fly appeared while a crab spider was feeding from the head of a captured fly, the spider would prefer trying to catch another fly rather than finish its meal at the other end of the captured one.

Anyway, shortly after the last picture the crab spider fell to the ground with its paper wasp where I presume it finished its meal.

This spring I began to look at what pollinates a species of wild cotton (Gossypium aridum) found here in Jalisco. A chapter by Parra Tabla and Bullock in the Historia Natural de Chamela suggested that, given the floral characteristics of G. aridum, I was most likely to find that hummingbirds were the main pollinators.

It didn’t take much time to discover that hummingbirds did indeed visit G. aridum. Initially these were mostly migrating female Black-chinned Hummingbirds (Archilochus alexandri) although males also occasionally visited. In all cases, though, these birds did not collect nectar through the floral opening but rather between the petals at the base of the flower.

[envira-gallery id=”561″]

In the past, I would have called this nectar theft and as I thought of putting this post together, a number of witty titles came to mind. However, in looking over some background for this post I ran across a note in the journal Ecology by David Inouye titled “The Terminology of Floral Larceny” where I discovered that using the term nectar theft for what I had seen would not be consistent with what the experts in the field would call it.

In his note Inouye catalogs the different ways that animals take things from flowers without pollinating them. He defines any instance where this occurs as floral larceny. He points out that there are different ways in which this occurs and divides these ways into 5 basic categories. Three of these categories deal with how nectar is stolen which is what I’ll focus on here. These three categories of nectar stealing (one of which is divided into 2 subcategories) and their distinguishing characteristics are:

(1) Nectar Robbing

This is the category Inouye divides into two parts. First, there are primary nectar robbers who make holes in flowers and use them to obtain nectar. Then there are secondary nectar robbers who while not making holes nevertheless use them to obtain nectar.

(2) Nectar thieving or nectar theft

A nectar thief takes nectar using the floral opening but fails to pollinate the flower. There are a number of possible reasons for this failure (for instance, an ant that collects nectar but whose body doesn’t come into contact with the reproductive parts of the flower).

(3) Base working

A base worker neither collects nectar through a hole that it makes nor uses the floral opening to collect nectar. Instead it collects nectar between the petals at the base of the flower. This kind of larceny occurs only where the petals are free and not fused.

This last category then describes what the Black-chinned Hummingbirds were doing.

Initially I didn’t see any other species of hummingbirds visiting G. aridum. Because black-chinned hummingbirds have one of the shorter bill lengths among hummingbirds listed for this area, it still seemed possible that one or more of the longer billed species might do it the “right way” and collect nectar through the floral opening.

Subsequently I found Cinnamon Hummingbirds (Amazilia rutila) attending a large patch of G. aridum. A paper by Arizmendi and Ornelas shows that this hummingbird has the longest average bill length among species found in this area. Nevertheless, as can be seen, it too “base worked” the flowers.

[envira-gallery id=”529″]

Since, then I have also seen Broad-billed Hummingbirds (Chlorostilbon latirostris) collecting nectar in the same fashion.

[envira-gallery id=”523″]

[envira-gallery id=”532″]

Like this last bird, the other two species also base work flower buds.

To date, despite several full days worth of observation, I have not seen a single instance where hummingbirds visited G. aridum flowers through the floral opening.

The above are not all the hummingbirds known from this area. While another long billed species like the Plain-capped Starthroat (Heliomaster constantii leocadiae) could feed through the floral opening or the above species might do it elsewhere, I doubt it.

I doubt it for two reasons. First, it isn’t at all clear that it would benefit the birds to collect nectar using the floral opening. Second, even if it did, there may be a significant risk to feeding through the flower opening. This risk stems from who actually does enter the floral opening of G. aridum and how G. aridum flowers make it hard to detect them.

The species most often visiting G. aridum flowers through the floral opening at my sites is the large Apid Melitoma marginella.

[envira-gallery id=”535″]

While this species is recorded as specializing on morning glories in this area, other members of the genus visit wild cottons in South America.

Other bee species also visit including another relatively large Apid, a Ceratina species.

[envira-gallery id=”526″]

Unlike honeybee workers, these bees are very shy. They appear suddenly above a flower and then literally dive into the depths of them. If you handle a flower with a bee in it, like I did to get these photographs, the bee will often hide in the darker recesses of the flower. Eventually it will peer through the flower’s upper stamens and then exit cautiously. If the flower opening is held shut, the bee will slip out from between the petals.

As can be seen in the above photographs, G. aridum flowers do not spread their petals but instead form a tube with them. Flower interiors are also dark purple. This combination would seem to offer bees a place where they can get out of sight quickly and then forage without being seen.

Why such secretive behavior by the bees and why might G. aridum flowers have evolved to accommodate this behavior? First, M. marginella is a solitary species while the Ceratina species likely is too. Unlike the workers of social species, solitary bee foragers are reproductive males and females and only gain fitness when they survive and reproduce. Second, these bees face real risks when foraging on G. aridum. I have observed multiple instances where Tropical Kingbirds (Tyrannus melancholicus) in the tops of trees sallied out to catch them as they flew to and from flowers. In a couple of instances, birds even attacked flowers presumably because they had observed bees going into them. For the bees, then, getting inside a flower quickly and staying out of sight is a matter of survival.

The problem for hummingbirds is that the same bee behaviors and floral features that likely make it hard for Tropical Kingbirds to see bees in flowers probably also make it difficult for them to see the bees. In fact, the problem is probably more acute given that hummingbirds forage widely and quickly. Bird bills are sensitive structures and a hummingbird foraging through the floral opening of G. aridum would also probably have to stick at least part of its face into the flower too. While I am not aware of any research on the effects of bee stings on hummingbirds, other bird species vary in their sensitivity to stings with some succumbing to multiple stings. Anecdotal evidence that hummingbirds avoid feeders where there are many bees or wasps is at least consistent with the notion that hummingbirds avoid close encounters with bees.

A final question, then, might be why hasn’t G. aridum evolved any apparent mechanism to prevent hummingbird base work? In fact, the outside coloring of the flowers and the way each petal curls at the base makes apparent where one petal ends and another begins, something that would seem to facilitate base work! Anyway, while I can’t absolutely rule out that hummingbirds are not somehow managing to cause self-pollination, the large distance between the base of the flower and where the stigmatic surfaces suggests that base working isn’t likely to result in outcrossing.

In a paper on the consequences of nectar robbing for plants, Maloof and Inouye (2000) suggest that nectar robbing might occasionally have indirect positive effects for plant reproduction. Could that be happening here? I think that there may be a couple of possibilities worth investigating. One is that the hummingbirds might reduce bee predation: several times I observed hummingbirds chasing off bee hunting Tropical Kingbirds.

Another possible indirect benefit of hummingbird base working is that by collecting G. aridum nectar, hummingbirds might keep nectar levels from accumulating to levels that induce flower damaging nectar robbery. In the early stage of my observations there was a relatively isolated G. aridum tree that was not being visited by hummingbirds even though a Cinnamon Hummingbird regularly visited a nearby flowering Cordia seleriana. While there was evidence of occasional nectar robbing elsewhere, it was very conspicuous here.

[envira-gallery id=”558″]

At first I thought that the stingless bee Trigona fulviventris might be responsible.

[envira-gallery id=”592″]

This bee species, though, generally focused its attention on the extrafloral nectaries below the floral bracts and was also common at other G. aridum sites with very low levels of nectar robbery. More importantly, when I later returned to determine the identity of the robber, Broad-billed Hummingbirds were visiting the tree and there was very little evidence of nectar robbery.

Finally, maybe hummingbird base working is bad for G. aridum. If this is the case, why hasn’t G. aridum evolved a floral architecture that makes it harder for the birds to steal nectar? This is the kind of question that only a panselectionist could ask with a totally straight face but let’s imagine that conditions were such that natural selection could effect such change. Most such architectural changes would also likely make it harder for bees to escape from flowers under attack by kingbirds. For the plant, this might have the negative effect of making bees less likely to visit flowers.

[envira-gallery id=”538″]

Juvenile Ctenosaur similis eating G. aridum flower

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Dr. Ricardo Ayala for assistance in bee identification.

From southern Mexico to northern South America, one of the first birds a birder new to this part of the world will check off is almost invariably the Groove-billed Ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris). Common in the kinds of disturbed environments nearly every visitor passes through and moving relatively slowly but noisily about in groups close to the ground, they’re hard to overlook.

Groove-billed anis have also been the focus of scientific research. The famous Costa Rican naturalist and ornithologist Alexander Skutch first explored their natural history while groundbreaking behavioral biologist Sandra Lee Vehrencamp detailed their fascinating communal breeding system. Others too have studied these birds.

The relative ease with which we can observe the birds and the fact that some very good researchers have done just that would suggest that we would have a solid handle on the basic natural history of these birds. But there is one aspect of these birds’ behavior that’s been somewhat of a mystery. Interestingly, it’s probably a mystery that countless campesinos could have answered for us had they wherewithal and any idea that anyone cared!

We have long known that Groove-billed Anis associate with cattle, horses, and mules. What hasn’t been clear are the forms this association takes. We know that, like cattle egrets, Groove-billed anis occasionally follow large domestic mammals and catch the insects these animals scare out of hiding while wandering about. Bent (1940) claimed, however, that Groove-billed Anis not only did this but also perched on cattle and even sometimes removed ticks. Alexander Skutch, however, doubted that the birds did this. He suggested that people who thought they had seen this had confused anis with Giant Cowbirds, a similar-looking species well known for this kind of behavior.

In a 1953 study, Austin Rand examined Groove-billed Ani feeding rates away from and in association with cattle. Despite several months of observation, Rand never saw anis perching on cattle. This and the fact that the birds did not stay with the cattle led Rand to conclude that these birds were “much less attached” to their benefactors than are cattle egrets and cowbirds. Nevertheless, Rand mentioned that his son once observed an ani “pick a conspicuous tick” off an animal. Whether it did this while perched or not, Rand doesn’t say.

Finally, in 1974 Eric Bolen added to this discussion in a one-page note to the Bulletin of the Texas Ornithological Society. I don’t have access to this note but Bonnie Bowen at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Bird’s of North America site suggests that Bowen observed Groove-billed Anis feeding on arthropods attached to cows with these arthropods likely being ticks.

Recently, I watched a group of Groove-billed Anis catching flies that were on or flying about a tethered mule (I have also seen them doing the same on a nearby tethered horse), particularly its neck and side. Most of the flies — many of which visited me too — seemed to be house flies.

[envira-gallery id=”458″]

The group of anis attending the mule included one or more birds off of the mule and one bird perched on its crest.

[envira-gallery id=”443″]

The birds that weren’t on the mule perched on various nearby objects or hopped along on the ground after the mule. This last set of birds occasionally captured insects scared up by the mule but more often focused on the flies that were around the mule’s legs. But what all the birds really seemed to be doing was waiting for those times when the mule lowered its head to feed. When it did this, the anis rushed in to catch flies that were on or flying around the mule’s face.

Only one bird at a time occupied the crest of the mule. When a new bird flew onto the mule’s crest the previous occupant always left within a couple of seconds (I’ve seen two birds stay somewhat longer on the larger crest of horse until one of the birds chased the other off).

[envira-gallery id=”463″]

While on the crest, birds actively hunted flies on both sides of the mule.

Perched birds often jumped off the mule when it lowered its head to the ground. While this could be because birds catch flies more easily from the ground, it more likely reflects the birds’ ability to hold on when the mule lowers its head. Birds on the horse that I observed did not jump off when the horse lowered its head even for extended periods of time. The horse, however, had a natural flowing mane while the mule sported a perhaps somewhat more difficult to hold on to stand-up trim.

Rand argues that the benefits to anis of associating with cattle as opposed to foraging away from them is greatest during the dry season when insect populations are low. Certainly it is deep into the dry season here in Jalisco.

It’s interesting, though, that Rand never saw birds perching on cattle. Possibly there were too few flies around the face and neck of these animals to make this strategy profitable. Fly density on domestic animals varies with such things as proximity to stables and cattle density. The fact that the mule that I looked at was tethered also probably increased the density of flies compared to that found in a free-roaming animal.

While the mule had ticks, I never observed birds removing them. This could be because the birds weren’t interested in them. It could also be because the ability of birds to forage for ticks is limited by their ability to reach them. To maintain their position on the mule, perched birds seemed very dependent on the hair on the crest of the mule. Possibly the only ticks anis can eat on the mule I observed are those near the animal’s crest and those around its legs.

[envira-gallery id=”487″]

References and Additional Sources

Bent, A. C. 1940. Life Histories of North American Cuckoo, Goatsuckers, Hummingbirds and their Allies. U.S. Natl. Mus., Bull., 176.

Once you know something about a group of animals, you come to expect that they will eat particular things. When one thinks of the family Parulidae (New World Warblers) and their diet, the first thing that comes to mind are insects or other small invertebrates and most warblers have fine thin bills ideally suited for catching these things. Also, anyone who has watched these hyper-energetic little birds forage can’t but be impressed by how actively they search out their prey.

In terms of being energetic, the Parulidae are perhaps outdone only by the hummingbirds. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising then that like the hummingbirds warblers might occasionally put their fine thin bills to use collecting floral nectar to satisfy their energetic needs. While the evidence that warblers do this is circumstantial — I know of no experiments or close observations ruling out the possibility that they are instead visiting flowers to catch small invertebrates — this evidence suggests that it is more likely that many are collecting nectar than not.

In the literature we find that Palm (Setophaga palmarum), Cape May (Setophaga tigrina), Yellow-rumped (Setophaga coronata), Northern Parula (Setophaga americana), Tennessee (Oreothlypis peregrina), and Nashville (Oreothlypis ruficapilla) warblers all have been recorded collecting nectar. Audubon’s Online Guide to North American Birds indicates that among North American warblers Townsend’s (Setophaga townsendi), Orange-crowned (Oreothlypis celata), and Black-throated Blue (Setophaga caerulescens) warblers also collect nectar. This same source states that Painted Redstarts (Myioborus pictus) visit hummingbird feeders suggesting they too might visit flowers. Finally, one researcher suggests that records of Bachman’s Warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) foraging in the flowers of majagua trees (Hibiscus elatus) raises the possibility that this warbler too might have collected nectar.

Most warblers that collect nectar appear to do this only occasionally — even though they they may defend these temporary resources — and most commonly during migration or on their wintering grounds. Tennessee warblers, however, regularly visit and defend flowers where they winter in the tropics.

Recently I observed a pair of Tropical Parulas (Setophaga pitiayumi) visiting some jocotes (Spondias purpurea) that are now blooming here at Cuixmala..

[envira-gallery id=”379″]

J. Andrew Boyle has very nice photos of a Northern Parula (Setophaga americana) collecting nectar from the long red tubular flowers of Firespike (Thyrsacanthus tubaeformis) in Florida. While I could not find online photos of a Tropical Parula doing this, Oiseaux-Birds states that this warbler “occasionally consume[s] some berries and nectar from flowers”.

The birds feed early in the morning but mostly late in the afternoon after the Streak-backed orioles (Icterus pustulatus — adult female and then juvenileshown below) reduced their nectar-foraging activity.

[envira-gallery id=”386″]

[envira-gallery id=”391″]

References and Additional Sources

Bent, A. C. 1963. Life histories of North American wood warblers. Part One. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.

Not well-known to many of those visiting the Costa Alegre part of Mexico (that area along the Pacific Coast of Mexico between Puerto Vallarta and Manzanillo) is that an ancient Nahua community of about 3,000 people — the Ayotitlán community — resides in the mountains above Manzanillo. Most of the pueblos making up this community are within the Sierra Manantlán Biosphere Reserve, a place of remarkable natural beauty and a possible cradle for one of man’s most important crops, corn.

[envira-gallery id=”246″]

The Nahua of Ayotitlán, like indigenous peoples the world over, have experienced a long history of marginalization and dispossession of their lands. For these people, recent struggles stem from the fact that while the Ayotitlán’s Nahuas live in one of the most beautiful places on earth, that same place is also covered with valuable timber and underlain by nearly pure iron ore, two things that outsiders covet zealously and will go to almost any extent to obtain.

In the midst of this, one group of Nahua women on the northern edge of the Ayotitlan community have found a way to quietly better their lives and in the process are casting a ray of hope for their community and other communities like theirs. These women and their families have organized a collectiva, “Color de Tierra” that runs a remarkable little store in the pueblo of Cuzalapa, Jalisco.

[envira-gallery id=”257″]

The outstanding efforts of these women have not gone unnoticed and have been recognized by various private organizations and government agencies.

This place is also no secret to the more savvy Canadians and gringos who live in the Manzanillo area. These folks make regular pilgrimages to the little store. In particular, they come to buy the organic, shade-grown, distinctively fuerte coffee that is grown here and that these women pick and process.

[envira-gallery id=”260″]

[envira-gallery id=”1449″]

For those who like their coffee decaffeinated but don’t like thinking about the possible health consequences of residual methylene chloride and ethyl acetate — solvents used in making decaf — Color de Tierra offers a remarkable natural, organic substitute: Cafe de Mojote.

[envira-gallery id=”293″]

Cafe de Mojote is made from the nuts of the breadnut/Maya nut tree, a large tree native to the area that grows in stands along river bottoms.

[envira-gallery id=”1448″]

The ancient Maya harvested the seeds from this tree and ate them dried or boiled in the form of a porridge or a flatbread. There’s even evidence suggesting they planted it and even perhaps chose the location of their settlements based on whether it was present or not. Today, little cottage industries are popping up all over Latin America based on marketing flour and coffee made from the nuts of this tree. Like with coffee, the nuts are roasted before grinding as this video from nearby Casimiro Castillo shows.

Does it taste like coffee? I think it tastes a little different but this might just be me. I say this because others I’ve talked to swear that it tastes just like coffee and because of the experience of a lady friend of mine. She tried the Cafe de Mojote before we knew its identity. Despite having grown up picking coffee beans, she initially didn’t believe me when I told her she really hadn’t been drinking coffee!

Even if Cafe Mojote doesn’t taste exactly like coffee to me, it still tastes good. What’s more, it has a low glycemic index, is rich in antioxidants, and is also a notably good source of folic acid and zinc.

[envira-gallery id=”267″]

Finally, by buying Cafe Mojote you can help tip the balance in favor of preserving these magnificent trees. Since few consume breadnut seeds anymore, trees are often cut down for firewood and to create pasture. What’s more, cattle readily consume seedlings so that trees can’t replace themselves. So, by purchasing Cafe Mojote you add value to living and reproducing forests of these trees. Like with Brazil nuts, it’s a win-win situation for the environmentally conscious consumer.

While most who travel to Color de Tierra’s little store are coffee drinkers, there are other attractions too. These include handcrafts like bowls of higuera (fig) made by hand.

[envira-gallery id=”288″]

There store even carries an assortment of locally-made beauty products.

[envira-gallery id=”280″]

But what I like most are the different kinds of local produce, products, and even seeds that the store sells.

[envira-gallery id=”237″]

A lot of these are things are familiar to even those not native to Mexico. But I have found a lot of things here that I wasn’t familiar with before like the delicious arallanes (related to guava) shown below in one of the handmade higuera bowls.

[envira-gallery id=”275″]

Of my new finds, the tamarind sweetened cocolistles these women sell are my favorites.

[envira-gallery id=”332″]

The Coclistle plant (Bromelia plumieri) is a relative of the pineapple and produces heads of elongated inch-long fruits. The fruits have little hard seeds that some “texture” people might have problems with but I just “work” around them and then swallow them with the rest of the fruit. Anyway, these “candies”, if you will, have a smoky, sweet taste that I find irresistible.

How to get to Cuzalapa and Color de Tierra

By the far the most straightforward way to reach Color de Tierra is to take Highway 80 from Melaque. There are other routes but most are longer and/or involve isolated roads of questionable quality. What follows are directions using this recommended route.

Using Highway 80 cross you’ll cross a couple of mountains before entering into the large pueblo of La Huerta. Continue past La Huerta until you the turnoff on your right to Cuautitlan.

You’ll start up and then drop into the area of Lagunillas at around 6.9 kilometers. From there until .7 kilometers SLOW DOWN, there are series of easily overlooked topes (road bumps) that are seriously bone-jarring (and are probably not very good for your car) if taken too fast (on your return, slow down when you see the Lagunillas sign).

At 11 kilometers you pass through an oak forest and then drop into a valley of mostly sugarcane. The road here is relatively straight but you should be on the lookout for potholes.

At 23.75 kilometers you pass under some yellow arches that welcome you to the very pretty town of Cuautitlan. Keep going straight.

At 24.4 kilometers you reach the central jardin of Cuautitlan. Continue straight as you pass the old and very picturesque iglesia to your left.

Continue straight until the interlocking brick road you are on ends at 24.75 kilometers. Turn left and go straight up the hill on another interlocking brick road. Note the large boulders on the mountain in front of you.

At 25.2 kilometers the interlocking brick road changes to an asphalt one. As you continue up the hill you’ll see a sign to Ameyalco.

At 26 kilometers notice how parts of the hillside are pulling away. This is common problem in the area.

From here you’ll descent until 29.8 kilometers where there is a single-lane bridge named Puente La Rosa.

At 30.1 kilometers you’ll see a sign pointing to Cuzalapa.

At 30.35 kilometers you’ll come to an intersection in the very small pueblo of La Rosa. Go left. To the right is the heartland of the Ayotitlán community, a very interesting place. If you decide to visit, it’s best to have a vehicle with high clearance and to travel in a group. Indeed, it’s probably best to find and join a guided tour if you want to see this area.

As you go left you’ll skirt to the right a very scenic little river valley. Be on the look-out for cattle that are occasionally herded along the road.

At 34 kilometers you cross a bridge and enter into Cuzalapa. Continue straight onto a rock road with two lanes of interlocking brick.

[envira-gallery id=”283″]

En route to Color de Tierra you’ll see a sign to the right for an ecotourism restaurant. It’s a very short ride to a nice place run by a very friendly family. It is, however, generally open only on the weekends.

[envira-gallery id=”273″]

At 34.85 kilometers the white building of Color de Tierra will be to your left.